Actually in Australia for many years Playboy and Penthouse published nude photos with women's genitals airbrushed smooth to look like a Barbie doll. That created a generation of women that think something is wrong with them and that they should have bits cut off.

"It might be a little annoying reading a porn magazine which has the text "'the photo was altered in order to modify the appearance of a person." thrown all over it."

I'm reminded of California's cancer "warning label" law. I stayed at a hotel a couple months ago, and there's a sign right at the door - "This building may contained substances known in the State of California to cause cancer." Same at the parking garage.

No, it's with the level of labeling laws. I don't have a solution, though...

Food manufacturers who do not process peanuts or tree nuts are starting to label their product "warning, may contain traces of peanuts or tree nuts", because if it turns out that something goes wrong later on, they're covered. Some people are reportedly so allergic to peanuts that being in the same room with someone who has handled a peanut sometime in the last day emanates enough peanut fumes to kill or significantly harm them.

So if a lineworker at the non-peanut-related-food plant has a BP&J for lunch and burps while operating the machinery, it could potentially contaminate a 1,000 gallon vat of soy milk enough to kill someone. So they put the disclaimer on there to cover themselves.

I won't be surprised to find the same warning sticker on a ladder soon. "Warning: Product may be contaminated with traces of peanuts or tree nuts or phenylalanine or whatever. Wash thoroughly with your choice of strong detergent Warning: Read warning labels on detergent prior to use. Warning: This label may contain offensive content (graphic description of death and/or violence by inanimate objects), parental guidance suggested Warning: This label, while in visual text and braille, does not meet Equal Access requirements because it is not available in audio form, Mexifornia law requires that all salespersons read this and all labels to the consumer. Warning: Overlabeling may have offended some, we're terribly sorry if we hurt your feelings" Then someone with a vegetable dye allergy will sue because they are allergic to the label.

I understand the reason for labeling, and I'm not against it, but manufacturers don't have the refined level of control over their suppliers they once did (if they ever did, frankly), so who's to say that the fried chicken you buy today that is cooked in canola oil might not use peanut oil next week? Better to just pre-print the warning label for every possible risk on ALL of your product so you can say "I did warn you" in case something happens and you get blamed for it.

Which carcinogens are in the hotel? Gawd, who knows? It's a freaking HOTEL with guests coming in and out carrying all manner of toxic crap, and furniture and linens being replaced all the time, and cleaning products being used, and walls being painted with whatever was on special that week at Joe's Paint Emporium, selling snacks that contain peanuts at the snack bar and serving bread that contains wheat and milk that contains dairy products. Change anything from your favored brand of fabric softener to your Ethernet cables, and you potentially introduce a new carcinogen or toxin that's among a list of thousands that'll surely kill SOMEONE.

Lawyer-man sez: Put up a sign that says "WARNING: This building will probably kill you in a violent, bloody, horrible way the moment you enter. Welcome!" and if it does, you've been warned! If it doesn't, hotel exceeds expectations, everyone wins.

In other words, at some point as more severe peanut allergies develop or are alleged or simply come to light, every product sold will have that label. Either that, or you'll have the rare company that either takes the risk, or completely and utterly bans peanut/tree nut products from their organization, even employees at home.

Actually, most food pictures are not that manipulated. It is the "food" that is manipulated during the shoot. Hamburgers are seared on all sides by hand, cheese that is actually plastic or lard, "ice cream" that is colored shortening, etc.

It's not clear that a porn magazine would be covered by this law, but adverts would be. We already have disclaimers in the UK for cosmetics adverts. They are actually quite informative. I saw one recently advertising some kind of shampoo and stating that it "enhanced vibrancy" and the models had ultra-bouncy curled hair, meanwhile the disclaimer at the bottom of the screen actually said something like "note: models did not use the advertised product. Models hair was formed by makeup expert." That kind of information makes a huge difference in how people perceive the advert. I've seen similar disclaimers for skin cream adverts, while the voiceover is saying how amazing the product is, the disclaimer says something like "In independent tests 28% of test subjects reported some improvement"; so now we know that 72% of test subjects reported no improvement with this product! I think the honesty in advertising laws are great, certainly a lot more amusing than the adverts we used to have a few years ago.

Most people have no idea how how much touching up goes on. In the documentary Bigger, Faster, Stronger [biggerstro...rmovie.com] a photographer from the "protein shake" market is interviewed. He states that he has actually done photoshoots of the "before" (weakling) and "after" (muscleman) photos in the same day. That's right, what the advertiser claims to be some amazing muscle growth effect is actually just photo manipulation. It's completely dishonest. Oh, and the models admit using steroids. They say that if people are stupid enough to actually believe the photos, then they deserve to lose their money. Given the choice between this blatant corruption, where the uneducated and trusting are lied to and exploited for financial gain, and a regulated market, I'll choose regulation.

I can agree with you on this topic. Falling Down was a great picture about a guy pushed just a little too far and his vengeful but hopeless Odyssey to get back what he's lost. Definitely a guilty pleasure to watch, sort of like A Shock to the System a rung or two down the social status ladder. It helps that I was looking for work as an engineer when this movie came out just as the cold war wound down. It's sort of The Swimmer, except with RPGs.

Pictures of burgers are representative of the type of burger you can expect

Except that the burger in the picture is big and plump and juicy with ample lettuce and fresh red tomato and big fluffy bun. Whereas the burger you receive is a squashed soggy piece of garbage with shredded lettuce and a green tomato, and some other shit that you can't even identify. Not exactly a match to the photo..

But does this apply to persons only? I hope we'd finally get to know the truth about McDonalds hamburgers. Or can we count them as persons?

Pictures of burgers are representative of the type of burger you can expect, you do not expect the exact burger that is in the photo otherwise they would have to take a lot of photos!

Good for the French anyway, this can only be a positive thing.

Food styling and photography is at least as complicated as fashion styling and photography. People at least do not dry up, wilt, sag, and turn funny colors over the course of an hour under the lights. Burgers are one of the harder foods to style and photograph. The burgers you see in photographs are not even edible. For some interesting tricks of the food stylist/photographer's trade, see here: http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=102996&catId=100406&tid=100008&p=1&title=Food+styling [choice.com.au].

Not just ordinarily inedible. Burgers in photographs aren't cooked all the way, instead being browned with a blowtorch. They have cardboard supports inside them, extra sesame seeds glued on with hot glue, glycerin and hairspray added for that extra juicy look, and the whole thing is held together with pins. Yum.

I went to a McD's and asked what the guy recommends. He said "the restaurant down the street." Sure enough, the pictures of McD's burgers were representative of the type of burger I could expect...at the restaurant down the street.

Porn DEFINITELY needs more truth and less fiction. There are good reasons why this should be the case, not the least of which is how the ability to enjoy one's mate is hampered by artificial and unrealistic "ideals" being portrayed. People are riddled with imperfections.

Actually atleast for me this made me hate the "normal", unrealistic porn which was the only one available as my teenage years from tv. Growth to hate it, and "the girl next door" type porn and the clips on tube sites work a lot better.

Isn't the very act of scanning and printing using a computer a digital modification?

Yes, they are. And they pretty much always have been. All photos are pretty much artifact to a greater or lesser degree.

No, it's not. Digitization and digital modification aren't the same thing. The comment about white balance and such done by the digital camera itself is more questionable, but I would think common sense would cover that.

Models have always been shot with artificial make-up, hair, fans blowing their hair and carefully controlled lighting to create an artificial image of the person.

Controlled, optimized, sure. But that is a real image of that person. If you're dropping chemicals on your film to cover a splotch on someone's face, that's altered, but slapping some baby oil on Arnie and having him flex or having Paris Hilton bend over and spread is just putting them in th

Hence, common sense. Take 100 pictures with 100 different regular ol' cameras and you'll have 100 slightly different pictures. Use Photoshop to pinch in someone's waist in one of those and you'll have one photo that is relevent to the topic.

Those kinds of modifications shouldn't and likely wouldn't be covered by the provision. There is already a pretty well-established metric by which photojournalists follow. It can be summed up in this statement, "Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects."

Cropping and white balance adjustments are considered ok. Adjusting lighting, posing, or other things are not considered ok, although most people consider it ok as long as the context is obvious (e.g., a portrait for someone's profile or similar). Adjusting the face, removing/adding hair is not ok.

Let's get to the heart of the issue here. Maybe I'm feeling particularly crabby this morning, but when will people just start taking responsibility for their actions? Will putting a label on the photo really stop girls from doing harmful things to their bodies in order to imitate what they see in ads? Does it even work for people who smoke cigarettes? I say you either pull the ads altogether *OR* you let people make their own choices and live with the consequences instead of creating excuses for self dest

Maybe I'm feeling particularly crabby this morning, but when will people just start taking responsibility for their actions?

Never, at least not in the way you want. As people, we don't work like that. It's not our nature.

Now, we have two choices: we can either discuss the rules we would make it people acted in the rational, self-interested way you want, or we can talk about ways to make the real world, with real, flawed people a better place. Me, I'd opt for the latter. Complaining that people just don't ta

I'm kinda torn on this one, actually. I get your point and I do agree with it, to some extent. This is clearly another "Think of the children" moment, but I can't say I don't see where this is coming from, nor that I disagree with the professed intention.

It's the whole herd mentality/behaviour thing, far more than it is about peer pressure. This isn't about some kids pressuring another to be more like them. This is mainly about a stupid top-down mentality that has pervaded our society for quite some time (hundreds, thousands of years?), and reached critical mass when the fashion industry assumed the prominent role it has had for the past decades.

The fashion industry is, just like any other industry/business, about making money. A good way to achieve this is by adapting other industries "planned obsolescence" model, which they've refined to an art form (literally) -- every single year there is a Spring/Summer collection and a Autumn/Winter collection, and every single year the "tendencies" shift. From colors, to materials, to styles (cuff/sleeve length, etc, etc), to accessories..

Forget about the sheer wastefulness of the process (both in terms of money spent -- or thrown away -- as well as resources consumed.. the creed is: this year's stuff is "in", last year's stuff is "out"), this is nothing short of crowd control. And it's not just for the upper-class either, there's stratification in all levels of society. You're either "in fashion" or you're "so last Tuesday", and nobody likes being the latter.

For some reason, women seem to be more prone to this than men. Heck, men's fashion even seems to shift less season to season than women's, but it still happens.

Now add to this all the artificial layers put on by TV shows (even those conceived specifically for kids -- in some cases, these are actually the worse [it may be old-fashioned of me, but there's nothing I find more disgusting than shows that broadcast the notion that a 9/10/12 year old girl needs/*should* wear blush and eyeliner and mascara and lip gloss and all that crap, that she should basically be a little *woman*, as opposed to just enjoy her child/teenagehood]), movies, music (heck, even modern "fuck the system" genres are populated by make-up-laden metrossexual posers) -- there's just no letting up.

And while adults are free to do whatever they choose, it's getting tougher for kids -- to the point where many don't even "grow up" until much later in their lives, despite *looking* like adults and claiming the perks that go with it -- which in turn either leads to a tendency to take bone-headed risks (12 year olds having sex?! 13 year olds becoming parents themselves?!), a tendency to crack under that pressure (the only ones gaining here are shrinks/therapists), or to be shunned as anti-social.

Hell, High School has always been hard on kids. I'm guessing most people here can relate to the stigmas associated with that period. But it's really getting insane.

It's probably too late to put the geenie back in the bottle, and this initiative won't amount to much (if anything at all), but it *is* sad that we, as a species, are indeed so sheep-like that, for the sole benefit of a few prima donnas and their bankers, we've let it come to this, where the proclaimed ideal for a beautiful/desirable women is just short of a terminal coke/heroin addict, covered in animal fat, artificial pigments and glittery stuff, wearing fake eyelashes, hair extensions and standing in the oh-so-healthy, oh-so-natural, 6" stiletto heels.

I agree, 100%. My first take on this was that the point that they want to make will be completely lost in the implementation. They want to fight anorexia, but making the models appear thinner is only a small fraction of the kinds of photo editing that is done. Usually complexion is the thing that is modified the most and is modified in nearly every photo of people used in advertising. If every photo has the label, then the label becomes meaningless.

I think the point is that you have to put it on if you "modify the appearance of a person". I would doubt that modifying the white-balance would count as this, but agree that it will be hard to choose an arbitrary point to draw the line of what does and what does not need the disclaimer.

More like impossible, if you want it to be meaningful.

If you've spent some time working with photographers, you know that moving a light just a tiny bit can dramatically change how much someone appears to weigh. Changing the colour of light - or even the colour of other nearby objects that reflect some light - can change someone from vibrant to sickly. And don't even get started on makeup. Labeling only an arbitrary set of electronic manipulations is at best a joke. It'll be great news for touch-up artists who still have their old-school airbrushes, though.

If you've spent some time working with photographers, you know that moving a light just a tiny bit can dramatically change how much someone appears to weigh. Changing the colour of light - or even the colour of other nearby objects that reflect some light - can change someone from vibrant to sickly. And don't even get started on makeup.

Those are bad examples, in that even if the result is a statistically improbable image, it is provably possible for that model to take on that appearance under those specific conditions. That's not in the same league image manipulations [campaignforrealbeauty.ca] that give results that the model could never achieve without alterations to their anatomy.

I remember at least one instance in the last 20 years where an American politician used a picture of his opponent and the ad mad the opponent look much lighter or darker than he looks in person in normal room light. There was some backlash charging the campaign with race-baiting or something like that.

You may be thinking of the Time O.J. cover, although that of course wasn't a political campaign. Time darkened O.J.'s mug shot to make him look darker, unshaven, and generally more sinister.

Let's assume that this was even effective for the purpose. The text would become so omni-present to basically become meaningless. In one sense or another, every ad will somehow be "manipulated." Even if that means merely cropping the person's body to only have the head, blurring people in the background, etc.

The other issue is who is going to enforce that right? France? An individual on behalf of France? A private right of enforcement? In any event, a company will put that notice on any ad simply to avo

is who is going to enforce that right?It's a proposal in french parliament, so we could guess.

As with ANY laws, that's the case. But that doesn't answer the question. In the end, it probably doesn't matter since the warnings are going to be on everything. The only exception might be if the power to enforce is left with someone who has no intention on ever enforcing it.

The obligatory warnings and disclaimers are printed across all kinds of products like cigarettes and electrical appliances in the US, why should ads be exempt?

Well, it depends on what you mean by "obligatory warnings and disclaimers." Many are not enforced by the law. Most are CYA warnings in hopes of providing evidence that the manufacturer told consumers that they should not put their

You sound like a programmer who is completely ignorant of how legal systems work.

Laws aren't written like "if photo.is_manipulated() then display_disclaimer() end". They actually use words and sentences to express the intent of the law in a reasonable way. Cropping will not be considered manipulation; airbrushing will. Furthermore, even "gray area" can be part of law, thanks to an amazing technology called "courts."

Yes, the purpose of courts is to rule in those gray-areas. However some laws (or proposed laws) are more ambiguous than others. In the case of photo-alteration, there is a wide and continuous spectrum, and I have a hard time seeing where the line would be drawn. (Or, just as bad, an end result where every photo has the disclaimer, "just in case".)

For instance, one might consider that doing a simple color-adjustment (which is necessary for any photo, really) shouldn't be covered under this law... and yet

Many laws ARE written like "IF(this) THEN (that). Very many laws are written that way--especially regulatory laws and criminal laws. Your tax law, for example, has many provisions within it that can easily be translated into language that can be programmed into a computer. Don't forget that many statutes are written by government bureaucrats with computers. They want computer-friendly statutes to make their jobs more efficient. Legislators are often responsive when such laws are proposed.

My guess is that they will probably ensure that they law does not cover things like cropping and red-eye reduction. On the other hand, one can never tell.

In regard to enforcement, I've heard that in between revolutions, France actually has this thing called a government. It's may be on it's Fifth Republic, but I understand that one is still going strong. It's got police and prosecutors and everything. I presume that they would be the ones to enforce it. And in theory, they have some control over what

I think the intent would be to reduce the use of image manipulation. Sort of like how the labels on cigarettes have made them.

My response to this is photography is an art, and the intent is not to duplicate reality, but to offer a personal interpretation of reality. The simplest way to push this is simply to hire artists to paint the scene, and then photograph the painting. Likewise, if the photographs were run through a filter to make the entire image appear less real, then perhaps the more gullible p

i really don't know why, but for some reason the female standard of feminine beauty (as opposed to the male standard of feminine beauty) is starvation porn. women for some reason or another think the ideal female form is that of a prebuscent boy

as for the magazine industry "creating" or "feeding" this phenomenon: no, if it didn't appeal to women on some level, the magazine wouldn't sell. media and consumer exist in co-dependency. media follows what its audience wants, for obvious reasons: $. (as an aside, this simple truth should dispel the whole idea of media-created trends on a whole number of other issues that some people believe: its the audience, not the media, stop blaming the media)

if you want to know what men want and like in the female form, it is well-established fact, biological fact, not cultural, that men prefer women who are heck of a lot more well-fed than what women see as an ideal

the whole scary skinny trend in high fashion is created by, and perpetuated by, and invested in, by women, not men. yes, there are few strange men who actually prefer their women to be unfeminine stick figures, but these men are not the norm

so girls, listen up, from the male perspective of beauty: go fix yourself a sammich. its your fellow women that want you to waste away, and on some archaic level we don't understand, its your own strange female mind that wants you to be so skinny, not us men

It's the 2D nature of the beast. Women don't want to be skinny, they want to look good. But a 2D projection of a normal person looks like a featureless block of fat. Therefore, hoop skirts are out, and tiny butts are in.

Adolescent girls are generally skinny, and that is what women want to look like--young. Men might find the MILF form attractive, but for a woman it means the end of the line. Women also like clothes, and I believe it's easier to find ones that look good when you are skinny.

It's easier to find clothes that look good when you're skinny, because the designers design clothes for skinny people. Then they extrapolate some of those clothes out for larger sizes, where they don't look as good.

I was thinking about this the other day... biologically, men are attracted to women that are healthy and capable of bearing, nursing, and bringing up children. We're programmed that way, in the interest of propagation of the species. It is not clear to me why any male would want to hook up with a girl that looks unhealthy, e.g. a "Heroin-chic" model, a pale, fragile goth, or a crack whore look should be a clear signal "not a good place to invest the future of your genetics". Of course, men are also programm

except the women in men's magazines are usually well-proportioned in the t&a department [...] the whole scary skinny trend in high fashion is created by, and perpetuated by, and invested in, by women, not men.

I hope you're not implying that Playboy models don't diet and exercise religiously, augment themselves surgically, and still their pictures are photoshopped. Women see men respond more to anything resembling that sculpted T&A form, but to women that look is slutty. Playboy minus slutty == stick figure. Chubby is not an option. There are no plump female celebrities that are not routinely ridiculed in everything from comedy shows to tabloids, and virtually always by men.

Imagine the kudos that would come about and the prized badge that a few pics without this tag would hold.
It's time people were no longer brainwashed into this aspiration for what is clearly not possible without a few layers of photoshop.
We'd all be a bit nicer to each other and ourselves if we started to accept the fact that no-one is perfect.

As a graphic designer, allow me to simplify things - EVERY image published has been altered with photo manipulation software. Whether it's as minimal as colour adjustment or removing some insignificant blemishes from the image to outright "enhancing" of the image. EVERY image has been manipulated. Trust me.

I don't know if such a law can even work, but just the fact that this kind of thing is even being considered is really cool.

My fellow male geeks don't truly get what girls go through and what a mind-job it does on them. But there IS one example which might resonate. . .

Remember when all those new Star Wars toys came out, and all the characters you once identified with were now PuMpEd up? I know it affected me in a negative way, and I thought I was fairly impervious to such things. I found it surprising and illuminating.

Advertising and media stereotypes fuck you in the head. Remember: Body hair was at one time not considered ugly on a woman. It wasn't until quite recently that this changed when a razor-blade company decided to start equating dirtiness with body-hair on women. Doubled the number of customers for its product. This was only a century or two ago.

Fuck advertising. Rock-on France! If it wasn't for Sarkozy and the creep of evil, France would be the true hero of the world.

Heck, how about diamonds? They're not that rare or valuable (compared to say emeralds or rubies), but DeBeers made a very successful campaign at the turn of the last century to create a market for their product by convincing women (and men) that diamonds were the only jewel worth giving as a betrothal ring.

Heck, until Queen Victoria had a lavish, highly-publicized wedding, they were simple affairs usually involving only the immediate family and simple ceremonies often taking place at the home of the couple.

I don't know if such a law can even work, but just the fact that this kind of thing is even being considered is really cool.

My fellow male geeks don't truly get what girls go through and what a mind-job it does on them. But there IS one example which might resonate. ..

Remember when all those new Star Wars toys came out, and all the characters you once identified with were now PuMpEd up? I know it affected me in a negative way, and I thought I was fairly impervious to such things. I found it surprising and illuminating.

Advertising and media stereotypes fuck you in the head. Remember: Body hair was at one time not considered ugly on a woman. It wasn't until quite recently that this changed when a razor-blade company decided to start equating dirtiness with body-hair on women. Doubled the number of customers for its product. This was only a century or two ago.

Fuck advertising. Rock-on France! If it wasn't for Sarkozy and the creep of evil, France would be the true hero of the world.

-FL

Hey, Why should I care about women's problems? I have been harassed, ostracised, and just plainly humiliated by women most of my life. First because of my weight, after that because of my hobbies, after that because of my Msc in applied mathematics. I just don't give a damn about women's problems anymore. Let one female come forward and tell her sisters that I deserve some basic human respect, then I will join the fight. Until then, women reap the fruits of what they have sown. Regarding the question of fem

The anger cycle, your attitudes, beliefs and all the other crap in your mental machine will put you squarely in the middle of exactly the kind of people which best match that head-space. If you are a shitty person, you'll be surrounded by the same. If you believe that the world is full of shitty people, you'll prove that to yourself every day.

Seems like the longer our democracies go on, the more bureaucratic and insane they start becoming. This isn't "fascism," this isn't the will of the people being usurped, this is the system working as it should, and these are the results.

It seems to me that democracy results in a sort of populistic legalism where you have thousands and thousands of little laws trying to create the perfect existence. But you can't make a perfect existence by putting strings on everyone and letting everyone else play everyone else's puppet master. Nobody can know even a fraction of the laws, yet break one that gets enforced and you're fined or jailed or forced into temporary involuntary servitude. Democracy may be freedom of the masses, but it's not freedom of the individual. The machine may be free to operate but the cogs are not free to turn. Is that really how you envision a free society?

And once we start trying to plug every possible hole that could cause mental illness or otherwise undesirable behavior we become an even more nightmarish version of Brave New World, where instead of people being conditioned by birth the governments ("the people") try to heavily restrict and control all social influences because of the undesirability of emotional problems in society, the end result being an overall loss of individual autonomy and in particular freedom of speech.

not Photoshop.
As long as fashion models have to be under normal weight to be accepted for the top fashion shows and magazines, young girls will follow this role model and that is the real problem, not photoshopping bad skin. If you type "anorexic models" into any search engine you find a lot of gruesome stories about girls who literally starved themselves to death on the job. Alternatively: force yourself to watch "Fashion TV" for an hour. That's not a new problem ("Twiggy" turned 60 last week, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twiggy [wikipedia.org]) and not one likely to be changed by any law.

1) This two-dimenstional photo is an alteration of the model depicted. The actual model exists in three dimensions and has volume, unlike this photo. Do not attempt to reduce your volume to zero, as it might affect your health.

2) The photo of this model is only 7 inches tall. The actual model is over 5 feet tall. Do not attempt to reduce your height to only 7 inches, as it might affect your health."

As a photojournalist, I think it would be interesting to see just how many photos in fashion magazines are airbrushed or otherwise manipulated after the fact. In terms of ethics, I was taught and have come to believe that there are a few "ethical" manipulations -- cropping, limited use of burning and dodging, etc., that you can use while still maintaining the integrity of the original photo. But once you change what was actually there -- whether it's airbrushing the blemishes off a model's face or using the clone stamp tool to take a few pounds off her hips -- you've crossed into photomanipulation. And it's only fair for people to know when this is taking place, IMO.

Especially when one reads the very first line of the article (emphasis added):

The UMP member Valerie Boyer filed in the National Assembly a bill aimed to put a warning on the publicity photos where physical appearance was altered by software for image processing, it was reported Tuesday in his entourage.

Actually, they do. Not by making them more skinnier (where we see all the bones) but by making them thinner, more elongated. The Dove ad is very good at demonstrating that. If not exagerated it is the kind of manipulation currently done by Ad company (see Dove evolution [youtube.com])

They fix their hair, alter their face bone structure, smooth all wrinkles, remove all blemishes, whiten the whites of the eyes, thin the waist, smooth all skin shading gradients, re-shade the breasts, remove wrinkles from the clothes,...., on and on.

They are making the size 4-6 models smaller and even the plus size models.